Changed your mind on health care? You're not alone
Barb ShellyConservatives’ fury over Chief Justice John Roberts’ surprising ruling in support of President Barack Obama’s health care law has crystallized into a shocking accusation.
He changed his mind.
How dare he?
Only a week after the court announced its long-awaited decision on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, a scenario first based on speculation has been confirmed by “sources” and emerged as a meme.
It goes like this: The chief justice at first found the law’s individual insurance mandate to be unconstitutional. He may even have begun composing an opinion to reflect that view. But then, because he is foolish enough to read newspapers and care about the image of the court, Roberts flipped. Rather than wreak havoc with an act of Congress, he found a way to make the mandate constitutional, thereby rescuing the law and, possibly, the Obama presidency.
The effrontery. The betrayal. Based on the fury of the conservative right, Roberts will be right up there with Judas in the annals of treachery.
Well, maybe he flipped and maybe he didn’t. We’ll probably have to wait for the memoirs to know for sure.
But so what? Roberts wouldn’t be the first Supreme to change his or her mind, and he won’t be the last. Apparently it happens quite often. Justice Anthony Kennedy once wrote a majority opinion blessing prayer at a public high school graduation, then rejected it, turned around and wrote an opinion for a different 5-4 majority declaring the prayer out of bounds.
A change of mind is everyone’s prerogative, especially when it comes to health care.
Ask Mitt Romney. The presumptive GOP presidential nominee flips several times a day on the subjects of health care in general and the individual mandate in particular.
In 2006, flush with victory after signing Romneycare into law in Massachusetts, then-Gov. Romney described the requirement that everyone must purchase insurance or pay a penalty as “a Republican way of reforming the market.” Now he says the mandate and the rest of the Affordable Care Act are “bad policy and bad law.”
But at least Romney, through a spokesman, agreed with Obama that the penalty for not purchasing insurance wasn’t the same as a tax. Until he changed his mind and decided it was.
Obama himself, as a candidate, seemed to find the idea of an insurance mandate preposterous when his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, proposed it. Six months into his presidency, he proclaimed it to be a responsible idea.
Here’s the thing about health care — it’s just hard. There are no pat solutions for guaranteeing access and holding down costs. The subject is rife with ethical dilemmas and policy traps. Thoughtful people change their minds for practical and principled reasons and cynical people change their minds for political reasons.
Ordinary people change their minds as often as the politicians.
Seniors who will tell you they didn’t survive the Great Depression and fight in World War II to see America turned into a welfare state oppose government-provided health care until it is pointed out to them that Medicare is exactly that.
Younger adults proclaim allegiance to free market health care until someone in the family comes down with a chronic illness and insurance premiums climb to unaffordable levels. Workers who insist they can provide for themselves and their families with no help from government are suddenly out of a job and without money to afford a doctor’s visit for a sick child.
Insurance companies used to change their minds, too. They’d underwrite somebody and then cancel the policy once a patient became sick. It’s a heinous reversal that’s outlawed in the Affordable Care Act.
Minds change, politicians vote, the Supreme Court holds hearings. A chief justice with a conservative mindset perhaps changes his mind and places constitutional considerations ahead of ideology.
That’s his right, and we should never change our minds on that point.
*To reach Barbara Shelly, call 816-234-4594 or send email to bshelly@kcstar.com. Follow her on Twitter at bshelly. *
Kent Mueller
10 months, 3 weeks agoBarb you are obfuscating the facts here. Neither Roberts nor the Supreme Court supported Ombamacare. That’s not what the Court does. The legislature and the executive branch legislates and establishes policy.
It is being presented in many places that the Court favored the legislation. That simply is not true. In his majority opinion, Roberts made that very clear. The ruling, as all Court rulings are, was whether or not it was within the bounds of the constitution.
So, to imply the Court agrees with the legislation is plain wrong.
JR Beillenhouser
10 months, 3 weeks ago“But then, because he is foolish enough to read newspapers and care about the image of the court, Roberts flipped. Rather than wreak havoc with an act of Congress, he found a way to make the mandate constitutional, thereby rescuing the law and, possibly, the Obama presidency. ”
It is not the job of the court to be popular. It is to uphold the constitutionality of cases it sees. But then again, judicial activism is only ok if the liberals do it. You know so little about our government, it is really rather embarrassing.
Barnett Cardin
10 months, 3 weeks agoKent and JR, your civics lesson is noted. But politics these days is akin to a sports score, and Republicans expected Chief Justice Roberts help them win this particular game. Judicial activism works on both sides of the aisle.
Johnathon Busby
10 months, 3 weeks ago“Constitutionality is still being debated.”
I’ve stayed out of the obamacare argument because I find it to be quicksand without any solid ground to stand on. However. The constitutionality isn’t under debate anymore. It’s merits? It’s worth? Whether it was created under an air of corruption? How much influence the health care industry had in writing it? Whether the commerce clause or the power to tax allowed it? These are all still being debated. And it may yet be repealed. But the supreme court ruled last week that it is, indeed, constitutional. That debate is over.
Kent Mueller
10 months, 3 weeks agoJohnathon, you are mostly right. You said “Whether the commerce clause or the power to tax allowed it? These are all still being debated.” Those two things you listed is exactly what the Court ruled upon. Roberts was very explicit in that it was unconstitutional when applied to the commerce clause, but it was constitutional when viewed under the power to tax.
And seriously, I wouldn’t worry about the health care industry having to much influence. Are you serious? The only real influence from the health care industry was when big pharma’s support was purchased by guaranteeing higher revenues due to more insureds. Just ask the medical device manufacturers what they think….they were not supporters at all.
Johnathon Busby
10 months, 3 weeks agoAh, you’re correct; Roberts was VERY specific he felt it to be a tax, and the others went with the commerce clause. I just don’t know how that affects what precedent was set… not a lawyer, wouldn’t claim to be.
But I do worry about the healthcare industry influence… any time any industry is having a say, it’s usually to the detriment of the people. (And you know I’m serious… you know me well enough to know when I’m joking Kent. ;)
Rachel Elaine Hines
10 months, 3 weeks agoThe Repubs are just pissed because the plan came from a Democrat. It’s not like any Republican president since, maybe, Nixon cared diddly squat about health care. Unless you count St. Ronald of Reagan’s contribution—EMTALA, passed as part of COBRA in 1986. EMTALA is why our emergency rooms are crammed with uninsured who have no place else to go. Yeah, Ronnie, send them where care costs about 500 times what it would cost in a clinic. Great idea!
In the interest of full disclosure, I am neither a registered Democrat nor a registered Republican. Just tired of seeing them put party loyalty about what is best for the people.
Rachel Elaine Hines
10 months, 3 weeks agoExcuse please, that should have been “above” what is best.
Mark Hastert
10 months, 2 weeks agoThe Republicans should have had the good sense to declare victory and walk away when Obamacare originally passed. It’s a conservative inspired law based on policy from the Heritage Foundation and a Republican governors plan. Instead they had to use contorted logic to flip flop on the issue and now it just looks obvious that they changed their minds because Big-O beat them with their own stick.
Michael Middleton
10 months, 2 weeks agoActually, for me the issue is not about health care. It’s the fact that the government has asserted the power to coerce the populace to do whatever it wants them to do under penalty of a tax. That undermines the principal of liberty. If they can force you to purchase a product you don’t want, then what else can they force you to do. Once, the only thing they could force you to do was register for the draft and pay taxes. Then they moved to dissuade people from buying things they did not want them to buy, such as cigarettes and alcohol. Now, they move to force people to buy a product that they may not be able to afford, or pay a penalty for not doing so. What’s next? Buy a $40K hybrid car or we’ll charge you a tax? Buy more vegetables or we’ll charge you a tax? Buy a gym membership or we’ll charge you a tax? Get 8 hours sleep or we’ll charge you a tax? Is there no activity that will be considered sacrosanct (other than abortion)?
Kent Mueller
10 months, 2 weeks agoMark, have you thought about not misrepresenting the Heritage paper from the early ‘90’s? Many of you on the left misstate that paper.
You, and others like Nancy Pelosi, incorrectly state that the genesis of the individual mandate came from Republicans, and specifically, the Heritage Foundation. That is false. The paper written in the early ‘90’s was a response to Bill Clinton’s health care proposal. The Clinton proposal included universal care. So, first of all, to say that “It’s a conservative inspired law based on policy from the Heritage Foundation and a Republican governors plan.” is patently false. The beginning goes back to at least the Clinton plan to which Heritage was responding. The thoughts in the Heritage in no way resembles what Obama brought forth. A major difference was the focus of who is served. Obama’s mandate serves the individual as it provides cradle to grave care, with the expected expenses associated with that. The Heritage proposal called for very high deductible, catastrophic health care policies which would rather protect everyone else from someone’s uninsured high cost medical event.
I guess, Mark, you and Chris Matthews, Nancy Pelosi and even Jonathan Altar rely on people not knowing what really happened.
The individual mandate, despite Mark’s statements otherwise, was not founded in Conservatism.
Reginald Thornton
10 months, 2 weeks agoRachel says the law came from a Democrat. Mark says it came from Republicans. Together they say Republicans shouldn’t hate it since they inspired it. Tee-hee. Actually, Heritage prematurely endorsed the idea until Constitutional scholars pointed out only states were allowed to mandate. Since then all Conservatives have been opposed. Irregardless, no Conservative (including Heritage) believes anything good comes from inserting government into a transaction between provider and consumer. Look to their track record with USPS, Medicare, DMV, Social Services. Oh, wait, Democrats intend well. Sorry, but there is nothing moral about imposing your will into the patient-doctor relationship….. P.S. Rachel, paying for costs imposed on the rest of us by uninsured exploiting Reagan’s EMTALA seems to be the problem. Why not just repeal that?
JR Beillenhouser
10 months, 2 weeks agoHave been reading comments now for several years. Really, can someone point me to some content where Mark hasn’t either mischaracterized or just flat out lied.
I can’t find a single post.
Rorie J Haines
10 months, 2 weeks agoInteresting, the column and the comments. One noted, one talked about game points, seems the comments are just that, trying to get game points instead of coming up with a better solution to keeping insurance costs down and/or affordable for everyone. Solutions like placing a cap on malpractice suits by keeping drug companies honest instead of them more worried about dollars than people (case and point just in the news lately about them and their fraud charges.) YES fraud like that drives the price of their drugs in the event they get sued. What about the underline cost that a doctor/nurse/staff education cost and/or eliminating or limiting malpractice suits against them. People, medicine is not an exact science! And in the case of both, what happened to the days of being rewarded for finding a cure instead of dumping money into one? Keep feeding the bears in the park and they will expect that is how they should eat instead of going hunting. How about a healthier America? Is New York on the right track by eliminating the super-size soda? Is the USDA wrong or right the food pyramid, instead of studying the lifestyle of those who lived over 90 years? One could go on and on about making it cost effective. These are just some random thought, and may be a bit way out there, but nevertheless they are thoughts to what may be driving health costs up.
So whether Robert’s was right or wrong in your mind how can the columnist or you placing the comments cast stones and complain about it instead of doing something about it to make it capitalistic and yet affordable for everyone.
Reginald Thornton
10 months, 2 weeks agoDear Rorie, Thank you for joining us in the comments section. Here’s a quick tip on how things work: Comments are made about the article. Since the article wasn’t about alternatives, comments probably won’t address that.
But since you asked…..
There is no effective solution that includes government injecting itself into the relationship.
Example 1. You don’t like fraud? Then why make the government responsible for rooting it out from thousands of miles away, instead of the millions of end-users (patients) that interact directly with the potential fraudster? Making government the payor removes the patient from having an oversight role.
Example 2. You want to study alternative medicines and lifestyles? Don’t ask the government. They’re busy cutting backroom deals with Big Pharma to ensure their participation. They’re rationing the tests and treatments available now, and not broadening them. They’re telling us not to buy big sodas while officiating at hot dog eating contests. They’re telling us to eat our vegetables while their husband sneaks out to get some fast food.
Example 3. You want lower premiums? Then let more insurance companies compete for my business (across state lines) while creating plans that cater to my needs and desires instead of one-size fits all determined by a handful of people that never met me and couldn’t care less.
Rorie J Haines
10 months, 2 weeks agoI do not disagree with you Reginald, the last sentence of my comment is my point, if you do not want government involved then you and I have to be the one to make them changes and make it capitalistic and yet affordable for everyone. We are the people let our voice be heard by writing to those who make the laws. What you see of people writing in comments is only a fraction of the whole who need to get more involved and stand for what they believe in